Slavery and the Civil War Revisited

[I] Just got through reading Donald Livingston’s excellent article about Lincoln (at Mises.org). In it, he mentions that “Jefferson Davis was an enlightened slave holder who said that once the Confederacy gained its independence, it would mean the end of slavery. The Confederate Cabinet agreed to abolish slavery within five years after the cessation of hostilities in exchange for recognition by Britain and France.”

Is this true? Someone in the comment section asked for a citation and emailed Livingston. I’m hoping one of the professors here can help me out.

Professor Brion McClanahan, one of our U.S. history professors, replied as follows:

Livingston’s article is indeed excellent, and if you have not had a chance to read it, I would recommend not only the fifth part of the article, cited here, but the other four parts, also at Mises.org. That said, the answer to the question is complex and deserves a thoughtful response.

Jefferson Davis was, as Livingston suggests, an “enlightened slaveholder.” He was well known as a kind master, even going as far as establishing a trial system on his plantation in Mississippi for punishment rather than resorting to the lash. He was not considered an ardent pro-slavery ideologue or a vehement “fire-eater” during the secession crisis in the months leading to war in 1861. As a member of the famous Committee of 13 charged with sorting through various compromise proposals in 1860, Davis suggested a policy of dual majorities for any proposal to pass. He supported the Crittenden Compromise, which would have preserved slavery in the South as well as extended the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific, but when Republicans on the Committee refused to support any compromise efforts, Davis voted against them. He wanted a compromise that was truly “national” in scope. Republicans chose Party over Union before, during, and after the War.

In 1864, Duncan F. Kenner, perhaps the largest slave holder in the South at the time and representative from Louisiana, approached Davis with a unique proposal. In order to gain the recognition of the British and French governments, something that had eluded the Confederacy since the beginning of the War, Kenner suggested that Davis tell both governments that the Confederacy would abolish slavery. No timeframe was discussed, and Kenner originally floated the idea of presenting the plan to the Confederate Congress. Davis asked Kenner not to do so and rejected the idea outright, thinking that the situation was not yet desperate enough to warrant such a move, but in late 1864 he sent for Kenner and told him to put the plan in motion. Kenner was given credentials and set out on a secret mission to Europe in January 1865. He arrived just weeks before Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox Courthouse and met with the two Confederate commissioners, James M. Mason (grandson of George Mason) and John Slidell, in Paris. Slidell at first refused to support the plan, but Kenner told him that such refusal would result in his immediate suspension.

The three men met with French Emperor Napoleon III, who agreed to recognize the Confederacy under these terms if the British would follow suit. The commissioners quickly sailed to London, where they met with the Prime Minister, Henry John Temple, who sternly rebuked their proposal, stating that Her Majesty’s government would never recognize the Confederacy under any condition. Lee’s surrender dashed any lingering hopes of continuing diplomacy, and this last-ditch effort to win international support died a swift death.

Davis would have needed approval from his Cabinet to send such a mission, and Kenner’s other task relating to a proposed joint British-Confederate bank with cotton used as operating capital certainly would have had input from the Confederate Secretary of the Treasury, George Trenholm, and Secretary of State, Judah P. Benjamin. Yet, such a plan would have required a commitment from the Southern states and a constitutional amendment, something they did not yet have but perhaps could have obtained if independence was secured.

Kenner’s tale was recorded in 1899 by the historian William Wirt Henry, grandson of Patrick Henry, and is legitimate. The Library of Congress admitted its validity in 1916, and referenced the Joseph Brent Papers, now housed at Louisiana State University, as evidence. Brent married Kenner’s daughter after the War, so he would have conclusive proof.

Regardless, Livingston’s point is accurate. Score one for Don.

Join us at Liberty Classroom for mind-blowing courses you can listen to in your car, taught by professors you can trust. Plus, ask us anything you want for a year. Learn more!

Some great research here. And yet people will still claim that the South was dead-set on a having a slave society and that the North was led by the moral saint Lincoln.

JustSaying

cheddar Bob, your reply has some gray areas, have you already forgotten the references concerning the stealth nature of their failed effort? And the inference of it’s illegality under Confederacy Law? your reply sound agenda driven in its ignoring of the articles obvious indications and research.

http://twitter.com/cheddarbob316 Cheddar Bob

I was saying that the issue is not as black-and-white as people make it out to be. The South certainly was not perfect (instituting a draft comes to mind here). But the fact that the South was willing to give up slavery for it’s primary goal of independence should debunk any assertions that the South needed slavery to exist and/or that the South was fighting for the right to hold slaves. Likewise, it’s a big blow to those argue that Lincoln was a “benevolent tyrant” who violated the Constitution but should be praised becausese he ultimately ended slavery in America.

Brother Jonathan

Cheddar Bob, this attempt by the Confederacy at the end of the war to end slavery does not excuse their prior behavior or intentions. By 1865 everyone could see the handwriting on the wall. The Confederacy’s initial desire was to enslave the African negro permanently and expand the institution of slavery throughout the territories. These are facts that they put in writing and swore an oath to defend.

Confederate Constitution – March 11, 1861
ARTICLE I, Section 9, (4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in Negro slaves shall be passed.
ARTICLE IV, Section 2, (1) The citizens of each state . . . shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any state of this Confederacy with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
ARTICLE IV, Section 2, (3) [A] slave or other person held to service or labor in any state or territory of the Confederate States under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall . . . be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs.
ARTICLE IV, Section 3, (3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory. . . . In all such territory, the institution of Negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

http://fanon.clubpenguinwiki.info/ TurtleShroom

Would you expect rich slave owners to say anything less? How does the
views of politicians reflect the views of a whole nation and an entire
war? Yes, slavery was in the CSA Constitution and in all secession
documents, but remember, all secession documents were written by rich
slave owners.

If the CSA was about slavery, why would hundreds upon hundres of thousands of people die for something they never owned and never would own? No one would die merely to protect the laziness of someone who can afford not to work.

The Emancipation Proclamation was issued near the END of the Civil War and it freed the slaves in the South, not the North (that was done with the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment).

To some, the CSA was about chains. To others, it was about freedom.
Slavery would not have lasted long in the CSA. Mechanization and
industrialization was fast about to wipe out the institution and make it
unprofitable.

In 1864 AD, Jefferson Davis convened the Confederate Cabinet to consider the gradual abolition of slavery over the course of twenty years in exchange for recognition and defense from the UK and Napoleon III’s
France. If slavery was so important to the Confederacy, why would they be willing to abolish it if it meant removing themselves from the Union? They saw the writing on the wall and were prepared to sacrifice enslavement for the freedom of Dixie.

Dude. Jefferson Davis was not “just a politician”. He was a killer and a SLAVE OWNER! He killed people his entire life (Mexican-American War) and he OWNED people as long as he legally could. He killed people. A lot of people, (West Point Graduate). He put innocent people in prison (Black Hawk), and he claimed to OWN people as long it was legal. Dude, the “Civil War” was all about slavery (SLAVERY). Keeping a person in prison all their lives and FORCING them to do the work. That’s what the Southern tradition is all about. The Southern tradition is all about enslaving others. Do you wish to clean the toilet of your slave master? If so, then you are a good Southerner.

Daniel Hayes

Firstly, you’re holding Jefferson Davis to impossibly high standards. Could not the same be said about pretty much every single leader in human history? Let alone Lincoln who did rather a lot of killing and imprisoning during his conquest of the South. This kind of “presentism” is pure ahistoricity.

“The Southern tradition is all about enslaving others. Do you wish to clean the toilet of your slave master? If so, then you are a good Southerner.” I considered laying out a thoughtful rebuttal to this nonsense, but now I think that would be giving it unwarranted dignity.

Jim Hodge

Thanks a lot for discussing this matter. I concur with your conclusions. The points that the data stated are all first hand on actual experiences even help more.

There is no defense for slavery, whether chattel or wage and either before the birth of the Confederate nation or afterwards. That said, the people of the South had (and have) a perfect right to withdraw their consent to be governed by the US nation without regard
to the issue of slavery. The issue before us now, as then, is the right to form
a government of one’s liking. The US government denied us that option by force
of arms. There is no justification, morally or legally for the results of 1865.
It just plain does not matter, the US aggression was a war crime. The current
US government is built on that unspeakable crime and we should not be surprised
at the all out effort to deny that fact, obscure the events that impeach their
war, and otherwise rewrite history.

Remember what President Davis said: “I am quite sure that the principles for which we contend will reassert themselves in future generations”.

We are that future !

DEO VINDICE

Roderick Mills

In Alexander Stephens’ Cornerstone Speech, which was not a speech that would have come from Jefferson Davis by the way, he still discusses much more than slavery as the cause for the war. He also discusses the superiority of the Confederate Constitution to the United States Constitution, and he discusses the Northern desire to use the funds gained from the slaves to finance internal improvements in the North. He also mentions that there was no real plan to free the slave from the North.

Welcome to Liberty Classroom

About Liberty Classroom

Most of us learned politically correct U.S. history in school. The economics was at least as bad.

It's never too late to learn the truth.

At Liberty Classroom, you can learn real U.S. history, Western civilization, and free-market economics from professors you can trust.

Short on time? No problem. You can learn in your car.

Got questions about what you're learning? Get them answered in our discussion forums.

Our Faculty

Thomas E. Woods, Jr., is the New York Times bestselling author of 12 books, including The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Meltdown, and 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask. He holds a bachelor's degree in history from Harvard and his master's and Ph.D. from Columbia University.Learn More »

Kevin R.C. Gutzman is the New York Times bestselling author of James Madison and the Making of America, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, Who Killed the Constitution? (with Thomas Woods), and Virginia's American Revolution.Learn More »

Brion McClanahan is the author of The Founding Fathers' Guide to the Constitution and The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers.Learn More »

Jason Jewell is the chairman of the department of humanities at Faulkner University.Learn More »

Jeffrey M. Herbener is chairman of the department of economics at Grove City College, associate editor of the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, and editor of The Meaning of Ludwig von Mises.Learn More »

Gerard Casey is Associate Professor in the School of Philosophy at University College Dublin. His books include Natural Reason, Murray Rothbard and Libertarian Anarchy.Learn More »

G.P. Manish is a professor of economics in the Sorrell College of Business at Troy University and a member of the University's Manuel H. Johnson Center of Political Economy. He holds a Ph.D. in economics from Suffolk University.Learn More »